1. HMT-DTC Project – 2009 Funded by USWRP Collaborators: NCAR – Tara Jensen, Tressa Fowler, John Halley-Gotway, Barb Brown, Randy Bullock ESRL – Ed Tollerud, Huiling Yuan, Paul Schultz, Wally Clark, Ellen Sukovich, Gary Wick, Chris Harrop General Objective: DTC contribution to the Model-related verification and assessment activities of the HMT. Primary focus is initially the HMT-ARB in California (hence USWRP interest). The principal tool is the MET package. Its particular advantages are spatial methods and uncertainty estimation

2. Motivation DTC and HMT (and other testbeds) share many common goals and interests Accelerating transition of research to operations Model testing and evaluation Verification Observations Expertise at HMT and DTC are complementary Hydrometeorology; ensemble prediction Testing and evaluation; verification Collaboration will enhance the success of both testbeds

3. HMT/DTC collaboration: Goals Four areas: 1. Implementation and demonstration of verification capabilities 2. High-resolution ensemble prediction capabilities at DTC 3. Data impact studies 4. Impacts of model physics and parameterizations (initial focus areas)

4. Area 1: Verification Implement current capabilities (MET and HMT) Extend capabilities to meet DTC and HMT needs Demonstration for HMT West in winter 2009-2010 Extend capabilities to Southeast in future years

5. Verification needs HMT Precipitation Snow level Atmospheric rivers DTC Ensemble methods Observation uncertainty GOES 6.8 m channel (K); 06 UTC 7 Nov 06 From Neiman et al. 2008

6. Precipitation verification HMT event-based verification using traditional measures (POD, FAR, Bias, CSI) Extreme events defined by region MET implementation: Examine sub-regions (e.g., based on terrain or river basins) Application of spatial verification methods Precipitation Atmospheric rivers 1 1 2 2 3 3 ForecastObserved From Ralph et al. 2006

7. Case to be studied Observation uncertainty

8. IOP 4 1800 UTC 12/29/2005 – 0600 UTC 1/1/2006 6h precipitation Inches From GSD DDRF Project Seminar March 27, 2008 CISC1 DKFC1 CISC1 DKFC1 BCYC1 BLU Obs uncertainty: Adjacent gages… Similar uncertainties exist with other types of measurements – such as radar, satellite, multi-sensor analyses

9. GSD DDRF Project Seminar March 27, 2008 6h Precipitation Ending 0000 UTC 31 December 2005 Impacts of obs uncertainty and variability

11. Specific Project Short-term tasks 1) New Watershed information available for MET 2) Efficient scripting for introduction of ensemble methods 3) Demonstrate MODE capabilities vis-à-vis Atmospheric rivers 4) Test shape matching algorithms for AR’s 5) Prepare demonstration QPF verification for HMT 2009 6) Ensemble and probabilistic forecasting workshops at NCAR

12. Impacts of obs uncertainty on verification Allow efficient application of multiple analyses Comparison of verification results Comparison of analyses Investigate impacts of observation variability and uncertainty on verification results Goal: Methods to incorporate obs uncertainty (as we currently incorporate sampling uncertainty) Trying to find the “truth”…

13. Area 2: Ensemble forecasting DTC goal: Develop capability in ensemble forecasting But – What does that mean? Post-processing and bias correction tools? Generation of ensembles? Testing and evaluation framework? Other?

14. Area 2: Ensemble forecasting Initial DTC/HMT collaboration Establish working group Workshop on community needs Focus on high-res hydrometeorological forecasts Include ensemble experts, operational centers Identify goals and steps to be taken Implement initial steps

15. Area 3: Data impact studies Long-term goal: Investigate impacts of new and existing observations on NWP predictions of high-impact weather Make use of HMT high- density and new observations Ex: Ground-based GPS water vapor, Space-based radio occultation data impacts on QPF Focus on HMT high-impact weather categories Impacts on prediction and verification GPS Met sites From S. Gutman

17. BAMEX Data Assimilation ControlCycling GPS+WPObs. From COSMIC/UCAR

18. Comparison of QPF bias for forecasts with (“non-local”) and without (“control”) COSMIC data Control is best Minor difference Nonlocal is best Indicates “wet” region -02 46 -10 -57 00 24 26 44 12 29 05 -15 93 04 -14 -05 -25 -16 -29 -21 [QPF (non-local) – QPF (control)]/observed X100% * Numerical values represent difference between the two forecasts in inches, normalized by the total observed precipitation at that site. It is expressed as a percentage. *Color fill represents which forecast had smallest bias: -green: COSMIC data improved the forecast -red: Control run without COSMIC is still best -yellow: Differences were minor ***The COSMIC data improved the QPF at sites where the heaviest rain fell. NOLOCAL performs better than LOCAL. From Ma et al. seminar 6-7 Nov 2006

19. Data impact studies Initial steps: Establish HMT/DTC focus group Outline initial goals and scope of testing activity Will include software packages DTC supports to the community (GSI, WPS, WRF, WPP, and MET)

20. Area 4: Impacts of model physics and parameterizations Long-term goal: Investigate impacts of model parameterizations and physics packages on WRF model predictions of hydrometeorological variables in HMT focus regions Make use of HMT regular and special observations Initial steps: Form an HMT/DTC focus group to carefully define testing activities Identify specific DTC testing activities

21. HMT/DTC Collaboration - Summary DTC and HMT have many common interests, and capabilities that can be beneficial to both Exciting opportunities for progress in several areas Collaboration will focus initially on Verification implementation and demonstration of verification capabilities Development of DTC capabilities in ensemble forecasting Later activities will include Data impact studies Investigating impacts of model physics and parameterizations Many of these topics and interests cross over to other testbeds – many additional opportunities for collaboration

22. Wjet Ratchet WRF output (ARW and NMM) GRIB PP (QPF) Selected gage subset Operational gage datastreams GRIB model runs (QPF) Netcdf verification point data WPP 24h gage QC ASCII2NC W3/jet copy MSS copy PCP-COMBINE Interim PCP fields POINT-STAT VSDB-ANALYSIS Verification score files Matched Pairs Observation Masks Score statistics WWW Web plotting tools Updated plots